Ghiz Deletes Controversial Facebook Posts

Considering the councilwoman's not-so-lawyerly ways

2 Comments

Tags:

We reported here yesterday that City
Councilwoman Leslie Ghiz posted personal information on Facebook about two
citizens who had emailed criticism about her pressuring of City
Manager Milton Dohoney to remove the Occupy Cincinnati protesters. The
news quickly spread on Twitter (which you can follow in our live
aggregator below), and Ghiz removed the posts shortly thereafter.

The incident might not seem like the
hugest deal — largely a petty socio-political discussion on a
conservative's personal Facebook page among a bunch of likeminded
people. But the publication of the home and email address of a
citizen who opposes an elected official crosses a major ethical line.

We purposely didn't publish screen shots of the posts due to the
private information involved. It would have been relevant only in
demonstrating the pettiness with which Ghiz offered the critics'
opinions to her collection of angry friends. “These are some of the
lovely emails my campaign has been getting because I believe the law
should be applied evenly and equally to everyone,” the first
introduction reads. How does she expect people to react to such
sarcasm? “Oh dear,
Leslie, I also care not for such a movement and its collection of
anarchic rogues. Let me set down my tea cup and console you."

In terms of
explaining why this incident occurred, Ghiz either made a mistake posting the personal info or was
acting out of spite.

It certainly could have been a mistake. Ghiz is
an adult — she's entitled to make the same social media gaffes we
commonly see in the form of teenagers and athletes firing uneducated
rants out into the world and then getting in trouble for them. Maybe
this is one of the first times Ghiz has made such a mistake and
she'll be more respectful of the power of social media and of her constituents' privacy going forward.

More likely, Ghiz was annoyed by the
emails — one of which was respectful and the other somewhat
mean-spirited — and copied and pasted them over to an online forum
that would certainly ridicule them accordingly. Whether Ghiz was
consciously trying to single out two individual constituents or not
doesn't make the action any less irresponsible and/or childish.

Ghiz earned a law degree from Capital
University in Columbus in 1994. It stands to reason that she
understands the difference between the First Amendment lawsuit
currently challenging the city's ability to close a public space and
the legality of the city's parking enforcement practices, which was
another of her petty responses to a federal judge's order that the
city stop ticketing protesters while seeking a compromise. Lawsuit
over the right to peacefully assemble vs. parking system anarchy ... this city is really going down the tubes, isn't it?

Ghiz's decision to accuse the city
administration of purposely refusing to enact the city's laws is
illogical at best and misleading at worst. She's a lawyer.
Protesters have sued the city over their right to exist in a public
space after bedtime. A federal judge forced the city to stop
ticketing. Suggesting that the city stop enforcing all other laws due
to this situation is one level of ridiculousness. Doing it with a law degree hanging on
your wall is another.

It's typical of uber-conservatives to
take such a stance against protesters while waving their flags all
over the place during any other discussion of freedom. But we've seen a remarkably respectful
response by the city administration and police department to this
group of Americans airing its grievances. It would be in the best
interest of educated leaders such as Ghiz to at least make an attempt
at demonstrating class rather than riling up the angry masses.